I am quite happy NATO (to name one) can deter bad actors from attacking it, or in worst case use them to protect its member states. But, yes, ideally weapons would be history.

[–] Ropianos@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Absolutely! Unfortunately, we are talking about the US. The article even says explicitly:

"Various U.S. presidents considered and approved billions of dollars in arms sales to controversial nations during his tenure — for instance, to Saudi Arabia in its ongoing war in Yemen."

So it's not the first time he's about to make a very questionable choice. Though I guess he knows some details that blur the lines.

[–] Plantee@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of course, I neither wanted to portray arms sales as just something good. Unsurprisingly, states manage to have these twisted deals in the name of national interests.

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's nothing new. Everything is used for politics nowadays and if there is some chance to portray a decision as bad (no matter if you need to leave out details) then someone will try to do it.

We have the constant discussion in Germany about "how the spineless Green party campaigned on reducing arms exports and instantly reversed their stance once in government". That the arms deals they wanted to reduce went to countries like Qatar oder Egypt while the increase now is going to NATO allies and Ukraine is of course never mentioned as gray areas and details have no place in the populistic bullshit political discussion has become.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

The American people have more than enough arms in their own homes to defend against a Canadian or Mexican invasion. We don’t need a military in the least; maybe keep the National Guard, but that’s it.